(09-06-2011 01:51 PM)lucradis Wrote: And this thread is now owned by time travel lol.

I don't mind, as long as people are thinking.

New question: which movie/tv show has been most realistic so far?

We have:

Back to the Future: Use a plutonium fueled nuclear reactor and drive 88 mph in a Delorean. They stay on the same timeline/same dimension so their actions have consequences in their future. But it also doesn't address the Time Travel Conundrum where Marty starts to fade from existence, but if he had not existed, then his parents would have met how they originally met and he still WOULD exist.

Bill and Ted: Travel via a phone booth with an antennae with the help of George Carlin in ridiculous clothing. Can also affect their own future. Time has "tubes" leading to different eras. Like BttF, the time travelers can interact with themselves.

Star Trek: I... never watched Star Trek.

Terminator: Never really addressed HOW they were sent back in time. Time travel is a one way trip and burns your clothes off. Nice ass, Arnold.

Frequency: An aurora borealis allows a son in the future to talk via ham radio to his deceased father in the past and therefore, the son can warn his father about the day of his death (I love this movie).

And as far as entering a new dimension by killing a butterfly, consequently beginning to exist in a dimension where the butterfly is dead... does that mean that the time traveler created a new dimension by his actions or did he just enter a dimension that already existed. And how does a person who didn't exist in a dimension suddenly begin to exist in it?

Well, I also like Frequency, it's one of the few time paradox movies I actually enjoy. I forgot about it entirely too. Thanks.
I would say that Terminator, although you're right about it's lack of time travel explanation, deals the most honestly with it's subject. Saying essentially that although people can travel through time it's to no effect, as the actions they create are already done? So to no new effect? Ugh. The end result is always the same.

But I like many other people would rather that Marty Mcfly and Doc have it right in all aspects. Including the hoverboard as I would gladly assassinate your president for one. And he seems nice.

As for your final question. Guzzah. I would assume that every action creates a new dimension entirely, filling it with the entire past up until that point and then all the new stuff, including a new you. Not that I think there are shit tons of dimensions based off of our actions, I think that's more wishful thinking, that's not much better than thinking that earth was created for us. Or the new theory that basically when we close our eyes all matter changes to it's true form, as we control it's appearance in a way that is more suitable to us as a species. I would figure that matter cares not for what we perceive or don't perceive. Matter is kind of a jerk anyways.
Who goes around squishing pretty little butterflies anyways?????

"I think of myself as an intelligent, sensitive human being with the soul of a clown which always forces me to blow it at the most important moments." -Jim Morrison

I don't want to sound like a broken record, but Star Trek has all sorts of details very precisely explained throughout the series. I their universe, time travel is quite complicated, but possible. They even have Time-police, the people from the future who go back in time to fix things time-travelers did, or to prevent people from doing time travel in the first place. So when Jean-Luc Picard goes back in time, they always follow "laws" of time travel, not to interfere in the timeline, stuff like that. They never do it perfectly, but it's all ok, it's Jean-Luc. To achieve time travel they use wormholes, black holes or extra speed generated from sling-shooting around the Sun, and they always have somebody extremely intelligent aboard to calculate the trajectory, speed and other things needed, like commander Data or Spock. In Star Trek changing the future is possible and the person who changed it is aware of the old, original reality and then when he (they) return to their present time, they have a new reality. So for everybody its only one reality, one timeline, but for the time travelers there are multiple realities, they are aware of how things were before and after they changed something.

But the thing I like most about Star Trek is the teleportation. Such a perfect way to travel around and the best thing about it is that the scientists are actually working on a real teleport. Last month I read somewhere that they have been able to teleport one (or some) photons, so it appears that the teleportation will be possible in the future. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...ation.html

Well. I don't think you should take wikipedia pages as truth. Afterall, those pages were written, most likely, by trekkies. And most of the facts were based on fringe-science. One scientist's opinion doesn't necessarily reflect the opinion of the science community as a whole.

Food printer is NOT food replicator. And that national geographic article is the only thing that sounds interesting to me. BTW, cellphones and iPads are based on Star Trek as well, I reckon you know that already. And yes, I'm a trekkie myself.

I've put on the first link that popped up, just as a reference. Of course it's not something to take literally, we are talking about a TV show and I do know about Wikipedia. But yeah, they had cell phones and iPads in the original series, made in 1966. and now we have them for real. And food printer is not a food replicator, but it is the next best thing and it does exist in reality. I've even heard about the impulse engines, there is a theoretical possibility that something like that could be made. Actually, something like impulse engines is a must-have if we (the human race) ever plan on going into space, these rockets are hardly good to get us to the moon. But the best thing to get from ST is the medicine. Just a little scanning and all done!

"That nice doctor gave me pills and I grew a new kidney" said a nice old lady when captain Kirk went back to the past and dr. Bones saw a woman waiting for the dialysis. He was terrified with the "old" medical techniques, so he gave some future pills to the old lady, changing the future, but saving the woman.

I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.-Hunter S. Thompson

(10-06-2011 05:03 AM)Filox Wrote: "That nice doctor gave me pills and I grew a new kidney" said a nice old lady when captain Kirk went back to the past and dr. Bones saw a woman waiting for the dialysis. He was terrified with the "old" medical techniques, so he gave some future pills to the old lady, changing the future, but saving the woman.

But what if Bones didn't save the old lady? The fact that she's old, by default, means that her existence has no meaning to the space time continuum. But imagine she is not old, but young and 8 months pregnant. What if she's Bones' great great great grandmother?

The fact that she is old has nothing to do with the fact he could significantly change the events in the future because of her. Day after you save a 100 year old man/woman he/she can fall down in the middle of the road, that can cause an accident and the most important person in human history could be killed in that accident. Messing with timeline is never predictable or good in any way. Butterfly effect and all that...

I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.-Hunter S. Thompson

I was watching the show big bang theroy, awesome show, and it had sheldon making a promise with lenard if they ever invented a time machine they would show up 5 seconds from now.

It got me thinking, hypothetically if everyone on this planet made a deal with every single other being, of all combinations of how this could be done, Eg a coin flip it can either land on tails or heads, two coins, tails-tails tails-head -head-tails etc.

If we all made the same deal, there would be a slight possibility that actually something did happen?
And if nothing happened would this disprove time travel completely?
Would this even work?

"This is not a pipe"
is a painting about semantics.
The Belgian surrealist René Magritte, tries to trigger a thought processes, where a shallow observer would say, "The artist is a fool" but the thinker would say "The artist is right"

sorry to double post, but i thought i should mention something about this as our media teacher at my school loves this picture hes always using it as a example.
He always inists having his pipe out aswell during this, hes awesome i know.

His words on it, which he uses to describe some part of the media is that, it may look like a pipe have the same qualitys as a pipe, but it is not a pipe its only a representation of something we know. It is a representation of a Pipe, not the real thing. I cant remember everything sadly, this was more of oh ive had a lesson on representation i want to chip in with something post.